[lojban] Re: ki restriction?

[Jorge Llambías <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:52:21PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The RefGram says:
> > >
> > >  Note: Modals made with ``fi'o''-plus-selbri cannot be made
> > >  sticky. This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, restriction.
> > >
> > > All three parsers accept "fi'o ki broda da brode".
> >
> > That's different,
>
> Different from what?

>>From what you're discussing.

> > {ki} there is a tag on broda, not on brode.
>
> What does that mean?

A tag always modifies a selbri, either by adding an argument
place or directly as a selbri tcita. In {fi'o ki broda}, {ki} is
a selbri tcita for {broda}, it is not a tag on {brode}.
{fi'o ki broda} is a tag on brode, but the {ki} is internal and
does not make the tag sticky for the brode event.

> > > 2 out of 3 accept "fi'o broda ki da brode", so it doesn't seem
> > > to be a grammatical restriction.
> >
> > That would be {fi'o broda [ku] ki da brode}. Here the term {ki da}
> > is a separate term from the term {fi'o broda ku}.
>
> ki tags the *following* thing, you're saying?

In that sentence, it is acting as a sumti tcita, yes.

> > > I don't get it.
> >
> > This is a proposal for how the grammar of tags could be cleaned up:
>
> No interest; I'm asking about the current state and why that
> restriction exists.

The proposal shows how there is no rational explanation for the
current state. If even you, who are quite capable of reading a formal
grammar, cannot make heads or tails of the current state, can
we expect the ordinary lojbanist to?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.